*1 comments, With these I concur in the judgment.
Court’s
Ray WILKERSON, Appellant Mitchell
The STATE of Texas.
No. PD-1605-04.
Court Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. *3 Worth, Alford,
Barry Appel- J. Fort for lant. Horn,
Jeffrey First L. Van Asst. State’s Austin, Paul, Atty., Atty., Matthew State’s Austin, for State.
OPINION COCHRAN, J., the opinion delivered of PRICE, JOHNSON, in Court which HERVEY, KEASLER, HOLCOMB, and JJ., joined. (CPS)
A Child Protective
inves-
Services
tigator interviewed
about
appellant
the re-
moval of his three children from the home
appellant
after
wife
and his
were arrested
for injury to a child. The court of appeals
held that the trial court committed revers-
ible error in allowing
investigator
the CPS
testify
appellant’s
about
statements
made during this custodial interview be-
cause the CPS worker did not administer
warnings
Miranda
or follow the proce-
dures
article
38.22 of
Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure.1
We hold that
only when CPS investi-
(or
gator
other
enforcement state
non-law
agent)
acting
is
in tandem with
investigate
gather
evidence for a crim-
inal
such
prosecution
are
re-
quired.2
no
Here there was
evidence that
(Tex.
1. Wilkerson v.
subsequent-
statement and that
is
statement
2004).
App.-Fort Worth
ly reported
to law enforcement
the CPS
investigator?
Prosecuting Attorney’s
2. The State
two
(2)
investiga-
If a Child
Services
Protective
grounds for review are as follows:
tor,
of a
while in the course
child abuse
(1)
investiga-
Is a Child Protective Services
investigation, conducts an interview with
who,
tor
while in the course of a child
subject
report
of a
of child abuse while
investigation,
abuse
conducts an interview
custody,
subject
subject
said
is in
and the
subject
report
with the
child abuse
incriminating
makes an
statement
subject
custody,
while said
inis
to be con-
subsequently reported to law enforcement
solely
sidered an
law enforcement
investigator,
the CPS
must the CPS in-
subject
because the
makes an
Appel-
crying,
with was
and she looked scared.
worker was
tandem
CPS
lant,
An-
urging,
deputy’s
said
appel-
police officers when she interviewed
Hospital
had been taken to Parkland
drew
Thus,
trial
not abuse
lant.
court did
my temper
“I
explained,
Dallas
lost
in admitting appellant’s
its discretion
...
pressure
I’m
a lot of
because
under
statements.
water, and
got
I
a bathtub full of hot
[S]o
in it to
him a
put
...
I
him down
teach
I.
appellant
Deputy
lesson.”
Marshall told
charged
injury to a
Appellant was
tell the Dallas
that he needed to
bodily injury
serious
causing
child
gave
he
exactly
happened,
what had
son, Andrew,
three-year-old
by putting
his
*4
gas. Shortly
for
appellant
ten dollars
scalding
him in a
He was
tub of
water.
thereafter,
wife,
the
appellant, his
and
injury
charged
causing bodily
to
also
with
Daniel, Curtis, and
three other children—
son, Brydon,
hitting
five-year-old
by
his
Brydon
apartment
to their
—returned
him
awith belt.
Crowley police
approached
car.
officers
trial,
At
John
Officer
Shelton
appellant
arrested
and his wife.
and
both
Crowley
Department
that
Police
testified
taken to a foster
The three children were
a com-
dispatched
investigate
he was
to
home.
plaint
injury
appellant’s
of
to a child at
Deanna
day,
investigator
The next
CPS
An-
three-year-old
apartment. He found
the
appellant
at
Lane-Martines met
were
lying in bed. His buttocks
drew
jail,
being held
Crowley
where he was
burned,
severely
and his
were so
feet
following
injury
his
to a child.
arrest
togeth-
that the “skin was webbed
burned
place-
the children’s
She needed to discuss
par-
like a
called
er
fin.” Officer Sheldon
ment in a foster home because there
Parkland
amedics who flew Andrew to
family
to
parents
no other
members
Ap-
Hospital
helicopter.
on an ambulance
trial,
At
she testified about
care for them.
that An-
told the officer
pellant’s wife3
Family
the
legal
her
duties under
Texas
earlier,
days
had
drew
been burned three
are removed [from
“Once children
Code:
ap-
and
and
February
that she
home],
we interviewed
the
we have—once
the
men-
pellant had treated
burns with
children,
notify
parents,
have to
the
we
shaving
thol
cream.
them with-
parents,
to the
interview
speak
First,
his wife
day, appellant
Later that
and
and a co-
period.”
in a 24-hour
she
Curtis,
De-
and
neighbor,
Brydon,
to
home of their
went
worker interviewed
Marshall,
County depu-
Brydon at
Wayne
a Tarrant
interviewed
Daniel.4 When she
pictures
of his
took
of
ty.
morning,
and members
she
Deputy Marshall
school
Next,
family
thighs.
his
and
appellant’s
marks on
buttocks
church had befriended
him
asked
appellant
interviewed
nearby apartment
it
into
she
when moved
Brydon.
wife
the marks on
Appellant’s
earlier.
about
three months
five,
six,
Curtis,
Brydon, age
age
vestigator
provided
sub-
ther of
always have
to the
Andrew,
marriage
ject
pursuant
age
to Miranda
admonishments
three.
It was
second
Arizona,
Sandralyn.
U.S.
86 S.Ct.
appellant and
for both
(1966),
Ann.
and Vernon's
L.Ed.2d 694
38.22,
before the
C.C.P. art.
went to
day
Lane-Martines
4. Later
Ms.
ad-
subject
will be
statement made
Andrew, but,
Hospital to interview
Parkland
evidence?
missible into
condition,
was not
of
she
because
his medical
able to talk to him.
wife, Sandralyn,
Appellant’s
the mother
Appellant
ten-year-old
was the fa-
Daniel.
of
trial,
that when a
trial. The court
reasoned
point during
appellant
At this
statement,6
testimo-
objected to Ms. Lane-Martines’s
suppress a
defendant moves to
ny,5
judge
objection
but
overruled
to show
the burden shifts to
State
testimony.
and admitted the
Appellant
statutory
constitutional
proper
told Ms. Lane-Martines
that he had
assume,
given.7 We
how-
warnings were
spanked Brydon several
times on Febru-
ever,
court meant that the burden
that the
ary
soiling
pants.
7th for
his
facts that
proves
shifts
the defendant
if
jury
appellant
causing
convicted
finding
interroga-
that the
support
would
bodily
to
injury
serious
Andrew and caus-
According
to
tor is an
the state.
ing bodily injury
Brydon.
It assessed
appeals,
the State failed
the court
punishment
thirty years’ imprison-
his
burden,
the trial
meet this
and therefore
years’
charge
ment on the first
and ten
appellant’s
oral
overruling
court erred
probation
appeal,
on the second.
On
the statement.8
suppress
motion
appeals
appellant’s
court of
affirmed
con-
appeals’s published opinion
The court of
case,
viction and sentence on the first
but
in conflict with
appears
this case
be
injuring Bry-
it reversed his conviction for
*5
unpublished opinions
don and remanded that case for a new several recent
from
children,
5.Appellant’s
objection
against
entire trial
and voir
that could occur
and she
questioning
dire
of Ms.
as
questions
Lane-Martines was
over to law enforce-
turns those
follows:
agencies
parts
ment
that become
of their
you hap-
State: What did the defendant tell
files and are used to result in the arrest
pened Brydon?
charges.
to
citizens on
object,
Defense: I’ll
Your Honor. Let me ask
objection
Court: The
is overruled.
questions
her a few
on voir dire.
appeals categorized appellant’s
perfect your objection?
6. The court of
Court: To
Yes,
quoted
objection
Defense:
Your
trial
above as an oral motion
Honor.
suppress.
Court: Go ahead.
By the defense:
Q:
you employed by
agency?
Are
a state
7.
S.W.3d at 152.
A: Yes.
Q:
you
reports
Do
take
from defendants that
appeals
stated:
The court of
police agencies?
are forwarded to the
suppress a
When a defendant moves to
question.
A: I don't understand the
statement, the
shifts to the State to
burden
Q: Reports-
proper warnings
given.
show that the
you repeat
A: Could
it.
proved
Appellant
Q:
you question
If
a defendant and make
(cid:127)
interrogated
about his
Lane-Martines
him
you,
they
documentation of what
tell
are
concerning
culpability
offense in
the instant
reports
by duty
those
forwarded
of law to
Crowley jail
attorney present;
with no
police agencies?
(cid:127) he was incarcerated for the instant offense
Yes,
A:
sir.
time;
Q:
at the
reports
Do those
sometimes result in the
(cid:127)
employed by
agency;
she was
state
people?
arrest of
(cid:127)
jail
to the
she knew when she went
my report?
A: Based on
that,
Q:
Appellant
ques-
she
interview
when
Yes.
made
tioned
defendant and
documenta-
report
police,
A: If a
is made to the
I don’t
her,
report
tion of what he told
they
my
believe
arrest them based on
re-
by duty
questioning
would be forwarded
port.
report
police
A
can be made to the
incident,
police agencies;
law to the
about a certain
would
(cid:127)
it,
interroga-
of her
she turned over the results
investigate
and an arrest would be made
Crowley police; and that infor-
investigation,
tion to the
based on their
not on mine.
Honor,
prosecuting
used as a basis for
object
mation was
Defense: Your
I still
based on
employed by
agency,
Appellant.
the fact she is
a state
(footnote omitted).
questions
she
what
those who are state In le- pursuing this are, definition, agency by “state agents,” gitimate goal, police might tempted be only working but those who are for or on physical illegiti- to use coercion or other behalf of police are law-enforcement “state gather mate to methods confession. The agents.” Although employment state Supreme Court was concerned with this clearly person “agent makes a an particular power and imbalance the result- State,” not, itself, that label does make ing inherently coercive it interactions when person “agent of the State” devised the Miranda warnings.20 purpose defining interroga- “custodial (CPS) Child Protective Services work- government tion.” Not all workers must ers, hand, very the other have differ- ready be familiar with and to administer ent goals responsibilities. set of and Their Miranda or comply pro- with the protect safety mission is to the welfare and requirements cedural of Article 38.22. As community.21 in the Although children LaFave, noted Professor “the when may at duty investiga- times entail the given police powers, official has not been claims, tion of child abuse that alone does Miranda has been held to inapplicable officials, questioning by in- not transform CPS workers into law en- school welfare vestigators, personnel, prison medical agents.22 forcement officers or their Nor counselors, parole probation and offi- statutorily does the fact CPS worker is cers.” required report suspected child abuse to law enforcement authorities transform a recognizes types
Our law
that different
CPS worker into an
of law enforce-
employees
of state
serve different roles.
statutorily required
ment. All citizens are
job
It is
enforcement’s
ferret out
law
crime,
au-
commission,
report suspected
child abuse to the
investigate
arrest
its
perpetrator,
gather
obligation
report
evidence for a
thorities.23 If the
sus-
State,
(Tex.Crim.
compelled
681 S.W.2d
be
to incriminate himself.” Ac-
Paez
App.1984);
cordingly,
see also Cates v.
we laid
“concrete constitu-
down
(Tex.Crim.App.1989).
guidelines
agen-
tional
for law enforcement
cies and courts to follow.”
6.10(c)
LaFave, §
19. 2 W.
at 622.
omitted;
(citations
omitted).
Id.
footnote
States,
20. See Dickerson v. United
530 U.S.
264.002(a) (stating
§
21. See Tex. FamCode
428, 434-35,
120 S.Ct.
warnings. may necessary.25 be At this article 38.22 may as an part, point,
For
the most
CPS case
a CPS worker
be viewed
workers,
investigating
family
police.
“agency”
who are
The term
matters,
placement
safety
relationship
police
and
denotes a consensual
which
officers,
persons
parties
criminal
investigating
who are
exists between two
matters,
separate parallel paths.
run on
where one of them is
for or on
not,
gathering
Both are interested in
informa
of the other.26 The law does
behalf
however,
agency relationship.
police
collecting
presume
tion. While
are
informa
prosecu
person alleging
relationship
tion for an arrest and criminal
such a
tion,
if
investigating
proving
CPS workers
are
has the burden of
it.27 But
a
housing
protection
prove
particular per
find safe
defendant does
that a
caseworker,
teacher,
neglected
abused or
children. When a
son —whether CPS
officer,
state-agency employee
working
preacher, probation
family
on a
or mere
to,
from,
is,
fact,
path parallel
yet separate
working
for or on behalf
friend —
State,
37-38;
jail
24.
v.
S.W.2d
Davis
173. The defendant was in
on these
Paez
State,
78,
charges
v.
(Tex.App.-Dallas
687 S.W.2d
when the CPS worker interviewed
1985,
ref’d).
Paez,
pet.
example,
questions
held that
For
him.
Id. This Court
defendant,
investigator
the CPS worker asked the defendant were
CPS
interviewed the
incriminating responses
"calculated to evoke
custody
who was in
for the murder of her
husband,
pending charges.”
relevant
Id. at 173.
proper placement
to determine the
case,
only
In that
the CPS worker not
investi-
of her children.
of the they could not custody, agent accomplish is bound all consti terview to what rules, in In statutory lawfully accomplish tutional and confession themselves?30 sum, cluding Miranda and Article 38.22.28 attempting to was law enforcement agent?
use the interviewer as its anointed It sometimes difficult to deter is Second, courts should examine the paths,
mine whether the two that of the CPS, ac parallel concerning of or record the interviewer’s police and that are perceptions: was the in they converged particu whether have tions and What so, questioning primary lar case. To do courts must examine terviewer’s reason person? questions evalua the the aimed at the entire record. Central to this Were gaining information and evidence for perceptions tion are the actions and the prosecution, they criminal or were related parties police, involved: the the CPS case (or agent goal? of the to some other How did the inter potential worker other in the case? Did and the defendant himself. viewer become involved police), help “build a case” that the interviewer First, arrest,31 courts should look for infor was in person’s led to the or the relationship between the mation about the pursuing goal some other or terviewer agent. police potential police and the Did duty? other At whose performing some going the know the interviewer was question interviewer the request did the Did the speak sum, with the defendant? did the interviewer be arrestee? the police arrange meeting? the Were agent of law lieve that he was police present during the interview? Did enforcement? interviewer with the provide the examine they give Finally, inter courts should
questions to ask? Did
the
the record for evidence of the defendant’s
implicit
explicit
or
instructions to
viewer
When the
perceptions
from the defen
of the encounter.
get certain information
interviewed,
he
defendant was
did
believe
practice”
dant? Was there a “calculated
speaking
with a law-enforce
the
and the interviewer
he was
between
the ac
ment
someone cloaked with
likely
agent,
that was
to evoke an
authority
police?
apparent
inter
tual or
response
during
from defendant
impression?32
him
Alter
finally,
gave
the record show
view? And
does
What
Cantu,
75; Cates,
apparent
authori-
at
with the indicia
28. See
817 S.W.2d
172;
NationsBank,
McCrory,
ty.
Dilling,
531 natively, person would a III. reasonable de position fendant’s believe that the inter court of Appellant argues that the viewer was an of law enforcement?33 appeals did not conclude that Ms. Lane-
Martines was an of law enforcement. bottom, inquiry At is: Was findings by He contends that the factual (explicit this custodial interview conducted the court of were appeals ly implicitly) police or on behalf of the rely on pure dicta. The court did not primary purpose of gathering evidence decision, any way nor them for its or statements to be in a used later criminal they necessary were to that decision. proceeding against Put the interviewee?34 holding The courts reliance for its full way, another is the interviewer as Appellant sup was that once moved to “instrumentality” or “conduit” for the press, on to the burden was the State police prosecution?35 or simply: Most is of Miranda /38.22 giving establish the the interviewer “in po cahoots” with the warnings, go and the State did not for lice? ward to meet that burden.36 it, Kerner, phrased People 33. As one court has Ill.App.3d 35. See Ill.Dec. 538 N.E.2d person dealing Unless realizes that he is (1989) (child-services police, acted with the their efforts to worker as "con elicit incrim- inating against statements from him do not consti- duit for information” defendant "police interrogation” tute setting requested within custodial where worker as meaning impact of Miranda. It is the on police investigation sistance from in his suspect's interplay mind of the between children; sexual abuse defendant on defen police interrogation police custody— and dant was to escorted interview with worker at reinforcing each pressure condition and officer; by police office door chief’s produced by anxieties the other —which interview; during was locked statement was interrogation” creates "custodial within the form; given prosecu on officers and a meaning suspect’s of Miranda. It is the immediately tor entered office thereafter and persons realization that the same who have defendant; arrested and the child-services world, cut him off from the outside exchanged worker and officer informa control, power have him in their want interview). tion both before and after confess, get him to and are determined to so, him to "interroga- do that makes the position Appellant's menacing tion” more than it would be with- custody "custody” out the Appellant; more No matter who interviewed no intimidating than it would he without the matter what his custodial status was or for interrogation. incarcerated; what offense he was no mat- (La. 1982). Loyd, State v. 425 So.2d knew, investigator planned ter what the do, do, do; duty or had a did or in fact Cates, 172; Paez, 34. See 776 S.W.2d at single solitary holding the court’s re- appellant S.W.2d at 37. Both the State and go mains—the State did not forward on the Family note 2003 revisions to the Code in warnings issue when the defense moved 261.301(f) § require highest prior- which "the suppress, simply and the State has not chal- ity” reports of child abuse to be conducted lenged that issue in this Court. "jointly” by agency a local law enforcement Although appellant might reasonably construe investigator. provision and CPS That went manner, appeals's opinion the court of in this interview, into effect after this thus the issue opinion holding we cannot read its that the "joint” investigations presently is not be- making suppress Court, mere of a motion to casts a express opinion fore the and we no upon burden State to show Miranda operation statutory provision. of that given. were We conclude that the say Suffice it to that Ms. Lane-Martines testi- appeals acting pursuant legal fied that court of meant that the State had a she was to her duty notify parents proper warnings emergency re- burden to show that given appellant proven moval of children from the home under because had certain § supra. 262.109. facts. See note 8 *11 conclude, however, the record is that mis- is evident from appellant than What We jail in appellant court of visited construes the law and reads the Ms. Lane-Martines literally. part procedure. too The mere of a routine CPS She appeals’s opinion Family the Texas filing suppress duty imposed of a motion to does not had a notify parents with- on the State to show Code to and interview thrust burden re- working day in of their children’s compliance with Miranda or article 38.22 one It was for this and until the defendant moval from the home.38 unless any law enforcement purpose, that the statements he wishes to rather than proves appellant. in- met product purpose, exclude were the of custodial that she with Thus, Furthermore, fails to show that terrogation. the State has no bur- record any practice” “calculated be- at all unless “the record as a whole there was den police Ms. Lane-Martines and the clearly establishe that the defendant’s tween [s]” likely in- an product of custodial which was to elicit statement was that does the record show terrogation by response. for law enforce- Nor Lane-Martines to ac- police It is the defendant’s initial burden used Ms. ment.37 lawfully ac- they what could not complish to establish those facts on record. fact, appears it complish themselves. in turn now to the record We not involved in the were appeals case to decide whether the court of investigation at all.39 CPS holding in the trial was mistaken implicitly court abused its discretion ap- appeals The court of stated concluding that Ms. Lane-Martines was Ms. “Lane-Martines pellant proved that not an of law enforcement who culpability interrogated him about his required comply with Miranda warn offense,”40 that concerning the instant procedures required ings and all of jail of- for the instant appellant was under article 38.22. fense, employed by a state that she was best, knew when she went is, agency, that “she sparse. This record that, Lane-Martines, jail appellant to the to interview that Ms. record does show questioned she defendant appellant when investigator, the CPS met her, 11, 2002, of what he told made documentation February the first time on for would be report questioning already custody on the when he was by duty of law to the It is forwarded concerning Andrew’s burns. charges turned over and that “she agencies[,]” unclear from the record whether interrogation to the CPS, of her but took the results hospital called CPS information Crowley and that police; custody the children because both ap- prosecuting was used as basis arrested and there parents their had been fact that Ms. But the mere family pellant.”41 no other known members. Paez, body origi- on his and that she (emphasis in school of the marks at 36 681 S.W.2d Brydon. nal) happened to appellant what McCrory asked (quoting (Tex.Crim.App.1982)). "If a re- testified: 41.Id. Ms. Lane-Martines police, I believe port is made to the don't § 38. Tex. Fam.Code 262.109. my report. report A arrest them based dire, police about a certain to the argument, can be made objection, voir 39. The entire it, incident, investigate and an they would ruling quoted four. in footnote their investi- would be made based on arrest Although possible it is gation, not on mine.” at 152. Ms. Lane-Martines 40. 144 S.W.3d that Ms. Lane- Brydon's this statement pictures at to infer from had taken said that she *12 may Lane-Martines have told In spanked Brydon. particular situa- appellant’s tion, about incriminating statement ruling the trial court’s that the CPS is not sufficient to transform her into an investigator agent was not an of law en- agent of law enforcement. forcement was within zone reason- disagreement. appeals able The court of There is nothing the record to indi- in concluding mistaken otherwise. cate that the investigating police knew interview, about Ms. Lane-Martines’s that Therefore, judgment we reverse the they spoke interview, to her before the appeals, judg- the court of and affirm the they that asked her to question appellant ment of the trial court. manner,
at all in any particular or that any attempt made to use her as a WOMACK, J., concurred in the result. conduit interrogation purposes. Nor is MEYERS, J., not participating. anything there in this record that indicates that it was Ms. Lane-Martines’s intention KELLER, P.J., concurring filed a of, to investigate on behalf inor tandem opinion. with, Crowley police. KELLER, P.J., filed a concurring Finally, nothing there is in the record opinion.
concerning appellant’s perceptions or how agree I with the Court that he viewed term “[t]he Ms. purposes Lane-Martines’s ‘agency’ denotes a consensual asking relationship him Brydon. Therefore, about which exists between only persons we can two where evaluate the situation from the one of them is acting for or on behalf of standard of a person reasonable in appel- other,”1 agree and I that position. lant’s the CPS Ms. Lane-Martines told qualify worker did not appellant as of law that she was a CPS investigator However, enforcement. I disagree there to him with interview and inform him agency about Court’s formulation of the test “removal” status of his children “acting as in tandem” with law because there enforce- was no family available Acting ment. “in tandem suggests member to with” custody. take Without more meaning broader than “acting information to for or on contrary, we cannot behalf of’ might sweep serve to within conclude that a person reasonable in appel- holding the Court’s position lant’s situations that are not would have believed that examples agency. true Ms. To avoid confu- Lane-Martines was an of law sion, I would eschew the “in enforcement. tandem” lan- guage and stick with the traditional defini- sum, In record, based on this the trial agency. tion of court did not abuse its discretion when it implicitly concluded that Ms. Lane-Mar- I disagree also sugges- the Court’s tines was not an “agent as of law tion that the perceptions defendant’s have enforcement” for the purposes of Miranda anything to do question with the of agen- when she interviewed appellant, Rather, and there- cy status. per- the defendant’s fore testimony admitted her appel- about ceptions are relevant to the issue of cus- lant’s concerning statement how he had todial interrogation. support of its did, fact,
Martines turn op. over results of 1. Court's at 529. Crowley her interview to the and that present prosecution upon was based report, obliged the trial court was not reach that conclusion. suggestion, Loyd, cites Fifth Miranda context but the Court State v. Amendment ease, right in the for the not Amendment to coun- proposition Louisiana Sixth require do Miranda was not violated when the de- sel context. Both contexts unaware of the of a fendant was status the statements be elicited law en- government agency informant.2 But agent, forcement but with status *13 shows, Loyd held that quotation being by alleged Court’s agent’s determined enforcement, conduct did not constitute relationship informant’s actual law fact, In interrogation.3 Loyd perceptions. custodial not the defendant’s what presciently anticipated Supreme comments, I concur in the With these Court later hold v. Per- would Illinois Court’s judgment. does un- kins: that Miranda not bar made to warned statements undercover agents.4
law enforcement The reason that, when the is un- defendant agent’s
aware of the law enforcement sta-
tus, subjected to he is not the coercive
pressures transform a conversation interrogation.”5
into “custodial (“Gene”) WRIGHT, E. Don Harrold matter, a separate status is agency But Holloway, Kennard, Pat and Pat S. Supreme as is well illustrated Court Holloway, P.C., Appellants S. in Massiah v. United decision States.6 Massiah, the defendant was unaware that the informant was an law enforce- Verner, Liipfert, Michael SYDOW ment, but because defendant’s Sixth Hand, Mcpherson Bernhard & attached, counsel right Amendment had Chartered, Appellees in- deliberately by that statements elicited formant inadmissible.7 have re- We 14-03-00222-CV. No. question agency cently addressed Texas, Appeals in the Sixth Amendment context Court of status Dist.). (14th that an not a explained informant was Houston had government agent when informant 24, Nov. 2004. no with and not agreement government under from offi- instructions distinguishes
cial.8 factor that Per- Massiah, making
kins from the defen- relevant to he perceptions
dant’s whether violation, is that
suffered a constitutional in the interrogation” matters
“custodial
1199,
201,
710,
(La.
Loyd,
6. 377
84 S.Ct.
12 L.Ed.2d
2.
425 So.2d
U.S.
See State v.
1982).
(1964).
Loyd,
op.
(quoting
3.
at 531 n. 33
Court’s
299,
Id.; Perkins,